> > > In my mind, the final "laserdisc dump" format should contain enough information> that if someone had the ability to master a new laserdisc, that it would contain all> the information required to do just that and result in a reasonable duplicate without> significant data loss, understanding that with the number of analog-digital and> digital-analog transitions we've been discussing here, wouldn't be exactly the same.>> > > > Agreed. And reconverting the digital conversion to analogue, sending it straight> into the laser pickup of a player, and having the player both act on the VBI data and> display the image it was sent would be an excellent demonstration of the success of> the process without needing to build a disc-pressing plant.> > > > Ok and how you would "sending it straight into the laser pickup of a player" without> additional hardware or additional "cosmetic" work on the LDP itself? Tell us please.> You still didnt answer the "significant data loss" question, so again what is lost> and why it is significant?

I can only answer the part of this concerning reproducing the digital data directly back into a player's laser pickup. Stiletto made the comment regarding significant data loss, so he'll need to field that one.

Regarding converting from digital to analogue and sending that analogue signal into the laserdisc player's laser pickup: that was a semi-serious comment, as evidenced by the ' ' at the end of the sentence. What it meant was that if a digital copy of the original analogue data could be converted back to analogue and played out through a laserdisc player, then we'd have a working conversion process.

It's a proof-of-concept - and a theoretical one at that at this point. Of course doing something like that would require hacking up a laserdisc player in some form or another; that would be unavoidable.

> This is nothing new btw., such stuff already exist, i.e. Dexter:> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wu3sVFfFDc> As you can see in the video, it is not much needed to fool the real hardware. The> real hardware doesnt know, what kind of videostream (meaning the content here) is> playing, it could be everything, as long as some specs are met.

True. But DEXTER can't meet the test case I outlined with converting back to analogue. Sure, it outputs analogue video (it has to in order to interface with the game's monitor), but the source material it uses isn't intended to be used to recreate a physical laserdisc; its purpose is to provide something for the monitor to display.

Think of it this way: if a CHD image is made of, say, a hard disk, that image should be able to be written back to another hard disk and used as intended, which would show that the imaging process was successful.

With laserdisc, there is nowhere on Earth (that I'm aware of) still in operation that is capable of manufacturing the discs. We can't call up Sony, or Imation, or Toshiba, and ask for a one-off made from {insert capture format here}. This means that we can't just have a disc pressed, stick it in a player, and say, 'yep, the conversion process works'.

This is where the somewhat tongue-in-cheek suggestion of converting back to analogue and shooting that straight into the laser pickup comes in. It's also something that DEXTER can't do by design. DEXTER can tell us if a game's PCB, monitor, audio, and controls are working as expected; it can't tell us if a given capture format could be used to generate a usable laserdisc from {insert capture format here}.

(Note: I don't actually own a DEXTER board. My reply above is based off of information I've gathered while looking into them as something I may want to acquire. My responses may not be 100% correct as a result; anyone reading this is encouraged to verify my statements.)

> > Don't refer to me as 'you guys'. I'm just a contributor. >> > Please just spare me, with your ongoing pointless one-liners. Either write a concrete> answer and be a (useful) part of the discussion, or just dont answer at all. Your> last posts regarding me, are only childish insults. If i have no clue or i am wrong> with something, try to explain it and explain it in a way that others can follow (i> cant, simply by the fact that the answer is to short and full of abbreviations.). You> only pick out stuff , where you are sure you can someone expose as a idiot. You> ignore or answer questions that are still unanswered.> > You should see, the good things in such a discussion, like the reveal of the> Domesday86 project. Something you would miss, with your arrogant attitude and> thoughts of "knowing everything".

Was this directed at me or Stiletto? I certainly never said this, and can't find where he did, either. It's rather confusing.